Blogs and Commentary

History Repeats: The MCLA Prepares to Debate a Third
Division

There's that old maxim that history has a tendency to repeat
itself. It certainly seems to be holding true within the MCLA. The
association is contemplating expanding to a third division from its
current binary setup and the Executive Board will, according to
MCLA president Tony Scazzero, tackle the issue at its winter
meeting in December.

For those familiar with the MCLA, this concept has been debated
for nearly a decade. Five years ago when I first starting covering
the organization, the idea was to create a so-called "Premier
League," comprised of those teams operating at the virtual varsity
level, followed by a Division I, which would be made up of all the
rest of the teams that wanted to compete for secondary
championship. Division II would be transitioned into a purely
developmental league that might not have access to a national
championship.

While there are still some details to be hammered out, it
appears the proposal put in front of the Executive Board will be a
slightly different variation of its predecessor. Instead of putting
the emphasis on the top end and a Premier division, this year's
version could concentrate on the creation of a Division III within
the MCLA. It would be a "developmental" league without a
championship where programs trying to get their feet underneath
them in the increasingly competitive – and lopsided –
MCLA would reside.

The advent of a Division III will likely be a welcome addition
for those members of Division II that have been saddled with the
"developmental" label since '05. Many of the high-end D-II programs
bristle at this notion, but it has been a self-inflicted wound
– three of the five teams who have won a Division II national
championship (San Diego, Montana, Davenport) have bumped up to
Division I within two years of winning a title.

Perceptions aside, a vote on the addition of a three-division
MCLA model will probably resurrect many of the debates that have
been brought up in the past.

The biggest argument against a Division III is from a branding
standpoint. After years of growth and heightened national
awareness, a lot of which came from the extraordinarily high
expectations placed upon its member programs, the MCLA would
suddenly be attaching its name to a tier of lacrosse that will be
below its traditional standards. Without a championship, there is
very little incentive to keep developmental teams from falling into
the "club trap" – forfeited games, threadbare organization
and middling dedication.

Three years ago, I wrote about the issue for
another publication, concentrating then on the I-AA phenomenon. A
Division III league is slightly different, but many of the same
points are applicable.

The MCLA may believe they can create a clear distinction between
its top two leagues and a developmental level, and it probably can
within the association. But from an outside perspective, the
different divisions won't be nuanced. While there is a greater
awareness of what the MCLA has to offer, it will always be judged
on its lowest denominator. If a developmental league fills that
role, it could set the MCLA's image back a decade.

Another potential problem of a third division is the lack of
viable competition for those programs going the developmental
route. There were 211 total teams in the MCLA last year and if,
say, 50 of them decided to go Division III (which is likely a very
high estimate), that would average out to five teams per
conference. Since no right-minded program in Divisions I or II
would burn a date playing a D-III team, unless a D-III team had a
large travel budget (which wouldn't make sense), those programs
would only have a handful of games every year. Does that help
"development?"

There's also an inherent financial peril with a Division
III. Since they don't have a championship, those programs in a
developmental league would have to be given a discount off the
usual dues (if not, why wouldn't they just stay in their current
division and roll the dice?). This would bleed off funds from the
organization as a whole, placing even more of a burden on those
teams who choose to compete at a championship level. They might be
okay with that, but I didn't hear too many coaches in Greenville
talking about how much extra cash they were sitting on.

All that being said, there is certainly plenty of dead weight
under the MCLA's current configuration. There were 21 teams in
Division II alone last year with one win or fewer, meaning nearly
one in five programs were not operating at a competitive level.
Throw in the four one-win Division I teams along with the annual
influx of new teams that want to get involved in the MCLA from the
NCLL and other leagues, and having a developmental league could
certainly serve a beneficial purpose.

In addition, without these developmental teams on the conference
slate (in either division), there will be a cost savings,
especially in the west, where geographical distances are
exponentially higher than in other locales.

This will ultimately boil down to a philosophical decision for
the MCLA. The association certainly will be able to survive
financially even with the addition of a JV division. The question,
as it has been for nearly a decade, is whether the MCLA's general
mission is to foster growth across the country or highlight their
marquee teams.